Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 18 — · Chapter 324 — John R. Manson Youth Institution, Cheshire
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-73 (2025)

(Formerly Sec. 17-389). Confinement of male children and youths

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any male child transferred to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court under section 46b-127, or any male person between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years who is convicted of an offense for which he may be punished by imprisonment for a shorter period than life may be committed to the John R. Manson Youth Institution, Cheshire, if he appears to the trial court to be amenable to reformatory methods. The judge imposing a sentence to the John R. Manson Youth Institution, Cheshire, shall impose a sentence to a definite term of imprisonment therein for a specified period of time; provided in no event shall any sentence under this section be for a term longer than the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense committed or for a term of more than five years. The judge, at the time of imposing any sentence to imprisonment in said institution, may order its suspension after any specified number of months and may place the defendant on probation for the unexpired portion of the sentence. Uniform forms of mittimus for commitments to the John R. Manson Youth Institution, Cheshire, shall be used, which forms shall be prepared by the Judicial Department and furnished by said institution.

(1949 Rev., S. 2772; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 58; 37; 615, S. 8; February, 1965, P.A. 503; 1971, P.A. 65; 1972, P.A. 127, S. 34; P.A. 73-71, S. 1, 2; P.A. 75-633, S. 3; P.A. 76-194, S. 2; 76-436, S. 171, 681; P.A. 77-344, S. 1; 77-452, S. 11, 72; P.A. 79-631, S. 105, 111; P.A 80-442, S. 4, 28; P.A. 86-186, S. 13; P.A. 95-225, S. 42.)

History: 1959 acts reduced maximum age for commitment from 25 to 21 years, deleted provision prohibiting trial justice from committing offender to reformatory, trial justice having been abolished, and substituted mittimus for warrant; 1965 act specified conviction in superior court, allowed judge alternative of fixing or not fixing definite term of imprisonment and added provisions re minimum and maximum terms and suspension of sentence; Sec. 17-389 transferred to Sec. 18-73 in 1968; 1971 act replaced “State Prison” with “Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers”, replaced “jail” with “community correctional center”, replaced “reformatory” with “Connecticut Correctional Institution, Cheshire” and added statement re probation; 1972 act changed maximum age of applicability from 21 to 18, reflecting changed age of majority; P.A. 73-71 restored maximum age to 21; P.A. 75-633 replaced “superior court” with “any court of criminal jurisdiction”, limited sentence to maximum allowed for offense committed or 5 years (previously 5-year limit stood alone), deleted minimum sentence of nine months and deleted six-month time period after which suspension of sentence may be allowed; P.A. 76-194 made provisions applicable to male children transferred to superior court jurisdiction under Sec. 17-60a or 17-60b; P.A. 76-436 deleted reference to court of criminal jurisdiction, removed references qualifying offenses as those punishable by imprisonment at Somers or in community correctional center and made provisions applicable to children transferred to regular docket, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 77-344 made judicial department responsible for uniform mittimus forms rather than attorney general; P.A. 77-452 clarified applicability to male children by combining wording of 1976 acts; prior to 1979 section references were changed to reflect transfer to title 46b; P.A. 79-631 deleted reference to “subsection (a)” of Sec. 46b-127; P.A. 80-442 required imposition of definite sentence, previously indefinite sentences were allowed; P.A. 86-186 changed the name of the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Cheshire to the John R. Manson Youth Institution, Cheshire; P.A. 95-225 deleted reference to the transfer of a male child to the regular criminal docket under “section 46b-126”, reflecting the elimination of the transfer provisions in Sec. 46b-126 by the same public act.

See Sec. 17b-732 re uniform forms for commitment of minors.

See Sec. 18-65a re confinement of young and teenage women.

Application to city courts having special charter provisions as to jurisdiction. 95 C. 601. Finding of Superior Court of age of defendant cannot be attacked in a habeas corpus action. 100 C. 503. If Superior Court could take jurisdiction to sentence accused under 16 to reformatory, it could only do so after proceedings were had in juvenile court. 115 C. 589. Cited. 116 C. 142; 153 C. 80; 158 C. 439; 195 C. 303.

Trial court held not obliged to follow recommendation of family relations officer in report concerning sentences to be imposed. 23 CS 214. Defendant resentenced from indefinite term to maximum term penalty for his offense. 28 CS 132. Equal protection clause not violated by statutory classification of juvenile offenders for correctional purposes. Id., 137. Limited to Superior Court. 30 CS 71.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Secs. 18-74 and 18-75. Detention for offense punishable by sentence to the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers. Common Pleas Court may sentence to Connecticut Correctional Institution, Cheshire. Sections 18-74 and 18-75 are repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 2773, 2774; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 59; 1961, P.A. 517, S. 100; 1963, P.A. 524; 1967, P.A. 266, S. 1; P.A. 74-183, S. 222, 291; P.A. 75-633, S. 5.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1969–2008 · leading case: Magee v. Comm'r of Corr., 937 A.2d 72 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Magee v. Comm'r of Corr., 937 A.2d 72 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “4 See also General Statutes § 18-73 (concerning confinement of male children and youths) and General Statutes § 18-65a (concerning confinement of young and teenage women), wherein the legislature distinguished between “incarceration” and “probation” as separate aspects of…”
In re Appeal of Bailey, 262 A.2d 177 (Conn. 1969). · cites it 3× “Rather, he predicates that claim on certain statutory provisions, particularly §§ 18-73, 18-75 and 18-77 of the General Statutes (Rev.”
Bolling v. Manson, 345 F. Supp. 48 (D. Conn. 1972). · cites it 2× “§ 18-73 or § 18-75 or to Niantic under § 18-65.”
McAuliffe v. Carlson, 377 F. Supp. 896 (D. Conn. 1974). · cites it 2× “§ 18-73, any male person between the ages of' sixteen and eighteen years of age who is amenable to reformatory methods may be committed by the Superior Court to CCI, Cheshire, if he is convicted of an offense which is punishable by imprisonment in the CCI, Somers, or in a…”
State v. Pitt, 253 A.2d 671 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1969). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 18-73. The youth of an offender is a highly important consideration in the evaluation of rehabilitation prospects and methods.”
Marple v. Manson, 373 F. Supp. 757 (D. Conn. 1974). · cites it 2× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 18-73. Petitioner’s certification of an appeal from this decision was denied by the Connecticut Supreme Court on December 12, 1972.”
Wiggins v. Robinson, 299 A.2d 189 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1972). “Section 18-73 of the General Statutes, concerning commitments, reads, for the purposes of this petition: “Any male person between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years who is convicted in the superior court of an offense for which he may be punished by imprisonment for a…”
State v. Anonymous, 30 Conn. Supp. 71 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1972). · cites it 2× “*73 An indefinite sentence, without expression of a maximum term, to Cheshire by a Superior Court judge under § 18-73 would be interpreted by the department of correction to mean a maximum term of five years.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.